Appeal No. 2005-0340 12
Application No. 10/098,105
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is that of claims 16 through 47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crowley in view of Sands and Ho.
In setting forth this rejection, the examiner has merely indicated that “[r]egarding these
claims, please refer to the rejection above” (answer, page 13). Although it is unclear
which “rejection above” the examiner would have us refer to, we note that given our
discussions supra regarding the examiner’s use of Sands and Ho, it follows that the
examiner’s attempt here to rely on Sands and Ho to teach or suggest modifying a
support structure in Crowley is equally unavailing. Again, we find that the examiner has
relied upon impermissible hindsight in attempting to provide a latchable panel in place of
the retaining panel (119) of Sands (now used in Crowley) that is screwed or bolted in
place to prevent inadvertent shifting of the circuit board therein. Nothing in the prior art
relied upon teaches or suggests replacement of such a screw/bolt retained blocking
panel with a latchable panel or wall section, nor discloses any particular form of
latchable panel or wall section that would be suitable to the task. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 16 through 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Crowley in view of Sands and Ho will not be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007